Stop making AAA games makes no sense at all though. So we should just stop making games like Witcher 3, MGSV, Uncharted 4, Zelda U etc? These are games that will most likely be voted the best games of their years and we should just stop making them?
The Witcher 3's budget was
much smaller than is typical for AAA titles. I mean, $67 million is a lot, but it still attracted attention for being noticeably less than what's spent on making and marketing its competitors.
But I think a lot of people here are saying, well, yes, they should stop making AAA games. I think the Witcher 3 looks cool, visually, but I can have just about as much fun from an indie roguelike (and I've probably sunk way more time into those.) Those are what AAA games are competing with. And, well, they're losing. That's not the fault of the consumers, that's a sign that the AAA business model is not sustainable.
I can enjoy a pretty game, but honestly, if the entire AAA model collapsed tomorrow and nothing like the games you listed was ever made again? I wouldn't be
that sad.
Especially not the advertising budget. That can just go die in a fire. The fact that spending money on an AAA game means supporting those horrible yammering advertisements is actually unpleasant to me.
firelogic said:
You say that here and now but you didn't sink $400+ into a PS4 to play games like Binding of Isaac for the next 5-10 years. Indie games are cheap to make and are sold on the cheap as well. If you want the relative cost of game development to be reflected in the final price of the game, then what do you expect to pay for a GTAV? $200? $300? Nope. You basically want a game with the development budget of a GTAV and have them sell it for $20.00.
I certainly wouldn't mind it if someone offered it to me! But here's what I think you're missing.
For the most part, the people who are not willing to pay more than $20 for GTAV? Do not value GTAV that highly. I would happily buy a GTA at $20, sure, but if they can't produce a decent GTA that I can eventually buy for $20? I would be perfectly happy never seeing another new GTA again in my life.
Other people might value it a bit higher, but it's pretty clear $60 is a ceiling for almost everyone -- that is, almost everyone is saying "yeah, if they can't produce a GTA I can buy for $60, I'm fine with never getting another GTA ever again." You're talking as if people ought to value it higher because it will go away if they don't, but what you're missing is that I think most of the people who set $60 as the absolute limit for what they'll pay for a game are
totally fine with that. If they can't produce a GTA (or a game like it) and sell it for $60, then GTA can just drop dead and it wouldn't really bother me that much in the long run, not at all.
Would I miss it? Sure. I'd like to keep GTA. I'd also like free chocolate and money raining from the sky. Sometimes things just don't work out. If making and marketing a GTA costs
that much, then they either need to revise how they make and market it, reconsider exactly what a GTA game should be, or give up and make something cheaper. Some things just weren't meant to be, you know? But I'm confident that if GTA dropped dead, something new would fill the void. It might not look or feel quite the same -- it might be smaller, or use cheaper music and graphics and voice actors, or it might just have less marketing (thank god) -- but I don't think the videogame industry is going to suddenly turn into a vast wasteland. It's just going to change.
Basically it feels like you're upset that you value these games more than other people (and, therefore, the prospect that the games might actually stop being made bothers you more, so you're asking people to pay more for them.) But the people who refuse to pay more than $60 for a game are making a pretty clear statement that, no, they really don't mind if these kinds of AAA titles stop being made.
